I believe this is already done in other countries, yes?

Oh, and anyone found to possess a gun who hasn't gone through this process will be executed.

quote:

---

The quote that starts "In 1956" is all conjecture, and bad conjecture at that. Baseless crap.

---

I see, rather than have an actual deep thought and wrestling with an issue, you apparently felt like running home to your Tickle Me Elmo doll cause it's safe.

Hey, next we can play with our "See and Say Dubya" toy.

Pull the string: I'm going to go to Washington and get things done

How Gov. Dubya?

Pull the string: Well, the difference is is that I can get it done.

Yes, Gov. Dubya, but how?

Pull the string: I have been a governor of a big state...

Ah, big state, cool! How much foreign policy does Texas generally conduct in a given year?

Pull the String: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East.

A strategy?!?! great, what is it.

Pull the string: To build coalitions to keep the peace.

Neato! how?

Pull the string: You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace.

*smacks See And Say Dubya toy*

Are there any answers in this thing. Oh, there's the problem, I've got it set on platitude mode.

There is a greater gap between Dubya having an actual original intellectual thought than the gap between Letterman's teeth.

*NelsonSpeak*

HA-ha.

Beat you.

Tim:

"Well, okay, here's an idea... Anyone who wants to have a gun should have to go through a process wherein they are rigorously tested..."

By whom? The government? Now you know how I'd feel about that. It's not a right if the government can revoke it. Now maybe if the gun company itself wanted to do that...

Jay:

So why exactly are you so worried about foreign policy? Perhaps because you know that Bush can absolutely destroy Gore on any domestic issue?

*smacks Jay*

Perhaps if you actually THOUGHT about his answers...

How is he going to build coalitions to keep the peace, you ask? Well, if you hadn't made up your mind that he's a moron already, you might actually expend some (and not all that much, at that) brainpower figuring out the answer to your own question. Here's a little hint: "By convincing other countries that it's in their own best interest."

Or maybe that's not so little a hint...

"there was an armed COP at Columbine, and he didn't even HIT the two kids who did that awful deed. That's right: he had a gun, he didn't have a trigger lock, and FAT LOT OF GOOD HE DID."

He wasn't IN the school, either. Lot of good you can do shooting through six inces of brick and concrete...

"I suppose you'd've liked it if every kid at Columbine had been armed. I can see the hallways now, with kids shooting each other trying to hit the two badguys. Sheeeesh."

No, but an inside security guard might have been able to handle it... but like I said, he WASN'T inside.

"I know! Maybe the teachers should have guns too! You know what, maybe we should arm all house pets too, would you like that?"

Re: teachers: it's illegal for civilians to carry weapons onto school grounds. The teachers know that, even those who own guns AND have carry permits, like my father. Too bad the kids' parents didn't teach them that.

"Omega, hundreds of children are killed every year because of handguns. It's sad. It's also sad you think that the death of a child is a worthy sacrifice for people to carry a killing machine with them."

Hundreds? where up your tuckus did you pull THAT one from? Or are you, like HCI, including juvenile gang members and all persons, whether homicides or suicides, under the age of 22?

"One day, you'll realize this for yourself. I used to think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, too."

You were wrong. Not everyone should. Only responsible people with no criminal record and a desire or need to defend themselves against bad people.

"You wanna know what happened? I grew up. Hey, maybe its just that I'm blessed to live in an area where I'm not in danger. Keep in mind: I live in Towson, MD, just north of BALTIMORE, and near Washington, DC. Keep in mind, D.C. used to be known as the murder capital of the world,"

It still is, despite the fact that it's completely illegal to possess a gun within the city limits.

"and Baltimore has the 3rd highest murder rate in the U.S.!"

Likewise.

"So what does that mean? I'm probably in more danger than you are, living where I am, but I don't feel the need to carry a gun. Why is that, I wonder? I don't have a death wish. Maybe it just means that carrying a gun isn't an answer."

Or perhaps you just haven't been robbed, beaten, mugged, threatened, etc.

"If you depend on a gun to "protect" yourself, how can you have a life?"

Ask a cop, soldier, security guard, how they can have a life, and they'll probably laugh in your face. What's the diff? What do YOU use as protection, your inherent trust in the goodwill of people?

"Do you look over your shoulder every five minutes expecting to see someone with an AK-47 aiming it at you? Oh, I know, Little Jimmy wants to pick your pocket. Go on, shoot him."

Why, should I? And you know, guns are used far more often (on the order of 2,000,000 times a year according the the FBI's Uniform Crime Report) as a DETERRENT, without actually having to be fired.

Hypothetical situation, Omega:

You're licensed to carry a gun, and you're coming out of a supermarket. You walk to your car, and someone surprised you, aiming a gun at you. "GIVE ME YOUR
MONEY!" he demands.

Are we assuming I'm carrying at the time? In that case it's easy. Toss him my wallet (since I don't carry much there anyway, but have a secret pocket). As he turns to go, draw and fire. Retrieve wallet, go home. Pick up medal later.

Well, that's what SHOULD be legal. Probably, though, you'd be charged with some kind of manslaughter homicide, under a stupid pity-the-poor-criminal law, so the next thing you should do would be pick up the other guy's gun in a covered or gloved hand and fire a shot or two in the direction in which you were standing a moment ago. Then plead self-defense. Everybody wins.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

I have been robbed. My car's been broken into twice. I've had people accost me for money on three occasions (two of them in front of a police station, so that didn't go very far at all).

But I still don't want a gun.

As for Columbine, that's not what happened.

"As Gardner steps out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turns his attention from shooting into the west doors of the High School to the student parking lot and the deputy. Garnder, visible in the brigfht yellow shirt of the community resource office's uniform, is the target of Harris' bullets. Harris fires about 10 shots at the deputy with his rifle before the weapon jams.

Garnder fires four shots at Harris.

Harris spins hard to his right and Gardner momentraily thiks he has hit him. Second later, Harris begins shooting again at the deputy. Although Gardner's patrol car is not hit, two vehicles that he is parked behind are hit by Harris' gunfire. Investigators later find two bullet holes in each of the cars."

Columbine Report/Timeline

Hardly shooting through glass, there was a clean line of sight and fire, especially if Harris could have hit the cars in front of Mr. Gardner.

Face it: there was a man on the scene with a gun, and even if he arrived too late to stop it from beginning, he wouldn't have been able to stop it.

First, you're talking about killing a man over a few dollars in your wallet. You're willing to take a life over a handful of paper ... ? Yes, you would be charged with a murder, and rightly so. It would be different if the guy actually started shooting at you.

And I'm not talking about police or soldiers. God knows they have difficult enough jobs -- but the soldiers are carrying their weapons in foreign countries, and so not applicable to a discussion about civilian gun use. And police officers are WELL TRAINED in how/when to use their firearms.

------------------
"[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 25, 2000).]

Who said he'd kill him? Personally, I'd just shoot him in the butt or something.

And you can't be charged for murder for shooting someone who poses a threat to you. He still had a gun, and he could easily still shoot you.

Actually, the point that's just been raised is what I have the problem with. It's not so much the guns, but the fact that some of you are willing to murder people. Even if someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be able to kill them. Hell, even if they attacked someone I knew, I'm not sure I'd be able to take someone's life.

Shooting him in the ass (even though he might deserve it) would still be malicious assault, possibly with intent to kill.

And if you can shoot him in the ass, that means he's not facing you -- probably walking away. Which means he's no longer an immediate threat. It would be different if he still had a gun pointed at you.

Omega, the rules of self defense are clear: only if you have no other option may you use lethal force.

That means, until the robber actually PULLS the trigger and fires at you, you CAN NOT respond with lethal force, because until that moment you do not know that he wants to kill you.

Sorry, dude. That's the law of the land.

------------------
"[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore

Who said we needed to kill (not murder) them to stop them? Pointing a gun in someone's direction is usually enough.

JK:

"Shooting him in the ass (even though he might deserve it) would still be malicious assault"

How do I get this through to you? NOT IF HE WAS A THREAT.

"Omega, the rules of self defense are clear: only if you have no other option may you use lethal force."

Not true. In some states, you can use lethal force if someone tries so much as a carjacking. The REAL rule is that if you have sufficient reason to think that someone is a threat, you can use lethal force.

Get your facts straight before you start talking. You're credibility is going down the tubes.

That is what you said Omega. I replied it would be malicious assault. Then you added:

"How do I get this through to you? NOT IF HE WAS A THREAT?"

Omega, let's do some basic figuring here. If you are able to shoot him in the ass, which way is he facing? Is he facing YOU? No, because if you're shooting him in the ass, he is facing away from you.

If he's facing away from you, after he's robbed you, he's probably leaving, which means he is no longer a threat.

Unless he's planning on farting you to death.

Do you comprehend oh ketchupy one?

As for it being allowed to use lethal force on someone attempting a carjack ... well, its just sad when life is so cheap that you can kill someone for that. I'm sorry Omega, but I believe life is a sacred gift, and I find it very sad when people treat it as something cheap to throw away.

------------------
"[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore

What I see on Bush's site is a lot of badmouthing of Gore. Nearly every link claims to disprove Gore.

There are no anti-Bush links on Gore's homepage.

Sorry, Omega. When Bush has to resort to posting negative papers on his opponent to fill his own webpage ... well, its just sad.

------------------
"[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore

You also need to learn when someone is talking to you, and when they're not. I said that to LIAM, as evidenced by the "Liam:" before that paragraph. Thus, my statement was in response to HIM, not you.

"If he's facing away from you, after he's robbed you, he's probably leaving, which means he is no longer a threat."

Anyone who has a gun and is willing to point it at you is a threat. Just because he has his back turned doesn't mean he's not going to turn back around and shoot you.

As for your final paragraph, let me see if I have this straight: being threatened isn't enough. Being in immenant danger isn't enough. You say that someone must ALREAY have tried to kill you before you can fire back. No effing way. Someone pulls a gun on me, and I have one too, he's going to be dead or seriously injured pretty quick.

JK2:

Oh, so now saying your opponent is lying is one of those "negative personal attacks" that the lib media is always talking about? Comparing your programs to your opponents is NOT an attack. It's the best way to inform the voters.

Frank & Tim:

If someone is in the process of comitting a crime, they are no longer protected under the law. Thus you might say that they have thrown their lives away. Of course, this ends upon apprehension.

First, splitting the hair mighty fine there.

And second, what if it isn't good enough?